On Monday, 13 April 2015 09:26:58 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:19:05 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 21:26:46 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 8:45:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 18:43:56 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote: "However, your tenderness towards illegal drug users is noted." Just hilarious. Anything, hughes, isn't it really, just anything to continue your digs and your support for larry's pathetic and foul little term 'methers'. You and larry have *so* much in common. laughing Go on. Make even more of a fool of yourself.


Are there no methamphetamine users in Dawlish? I bet there are and I bet there are quite a number of ****heads too. More importantly, I bet that neither of these groups has your entire approval and that you may possibly refer to them at times in impolite colloquial terms. So what's all this about the druggies of SE20, then? Clearly they are the lilies of the field for some mysterious reason. But you don't believe that. Such hypocrisy! Lawrie and I are quite different in many ways, BTW. What we do share, along with the vast majority of the population, is a smidgeon of self-awareness and the ability to get on with people. Maybe this is what irks you.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

And you did. Just hilarious. laughing

You and larry are like peas in a pod, in so many ways, but the comparison is one that you don't like, do you? You bring it on yourself, hughes; you bring it on yourself. laughing

Bring *what* on myself, precisely? I feel no opprobrium, none at all, so again, what have I brought on myself? Your disapproval. Bugger me, I quake in my shoes. Do you seriously expect me to be upset by the fact that you reckon Lawrie and I are near-identical? You're mad, quite mad! On a scale of 0-100 I'd say you have a social IQ of about -6. Just sod off and get it sorted; we've had enough of you. Your colossal capacity for unpleasantness and for inducing it in others is something we can do without..

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

In the past, you've felt no opprobrium at calling people C***s in this newsgroup, hughes, either, have you? Indeed, you've justified it because the term was directed at me. You and larry have *so* much in common. You feel you can say anything and it is perfectly OK, because you feel justified, as you don't like the person replying to you. Just look at that abuse-filled post you've just written again.

No-one asked you to join this thread, you decided to. Now you are struggling to justify your actions, as you initially described the OP as: "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting with a self-deprecating title and that I replied to it." Your best defence now is: "Just sod off and get it sorted; we've had enough of you". You know an argument has been lost a long time ago when people like you start that.

If a foul personage like larry decides to tar people he would never know with some foul little brush of his and you support him, you'll find that not everyone is happy. I for one, as others often do, will tell you and him that the initial posting was not acceptable. You won't like that and your reaction to being told is so typical of so many. It is not the thing you do which is wrong, it is the fact that someone has told you it is wrong.

Go on hughes: dig your shared hole with larry a little deeper and throw in a little more abuse as your only spade. laughing again

PS The next way out is "This will be my last post on the subject............(with some more abuse thrown in)." It's the usual Internet escape route when an argument is lost. The fact remains, through all your abuse, that you are quite simply wrong to support larry's position with regard to the term 'methers'. The term is foul, as are both are for your supporting it.

PPS Remember "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting "

I say, Methers, old chap, could you deal with this fellow? He seems to having a fit of the vapours, don'cha know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.